• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Phillies Fan Tasered - Good Move or Bad Move?

Phillies Fan Tasered - Good Move or Bad Move?

  • Good Move Jolt him!

    Votes: 26 65.0%
  • Bad Move He Caused No Harm!

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Total voters
    40
It wasnt but 100 years ago 15 year olds were routinely married, parenting children, building and running farms and business. And now...at 17 he is a 'poor child'. Behold...the pussification of America.

My two words for the day Pussification and Commiefornia. We need A DP word log book thread so we can easily go back and get these Jewels when ever we need them.
 
The chance of dying from the tazer is low enough to be considered in the freak accident levels (didn't zyph put up a comparison on this already). While the chance of injury from tackling... well, just look at how often football is delayed due to injuries..... and they are wearing pads.

And if you're built like a football player with all the skills and athleticism of say Urlacher or Lewis; I may agree with you. But changes are very very slim. And certainly the drunk dumbass they were chasing wasn't no Ray Lewis. So again, that argument is BS.

So instead, we have a device which can cause death vs. a low speed tackle or take down with much less change of overall injury and pain. For trespassing with no threat to others; I'm going to say that tazering is a bit over the line

If the risk of dying was so high, it would't be a requirement for law enforcement to be tazed themselves before they can use the device. And cities would be getting sued over a family member's "cop in training" dying from its use. Go look up some statistics that don't come from your paranoid anarchy blog websites on the tazer for more info, you know, learn something.

Mmm, yes. Very controlled circumstances vs. field environment. Yup...that's valid. :roll:

Until the tackle caused the kids arm go bend a strange way and then break when the large security guard's weight fully hit him. Then you'd be screaming about how these guards are so abusive. Its a lose-lose situation with paranoid anarchy folks.

If he got tackled and if his arm got broken, that's part and parcel to the whole trespass thing. But for the speeds and forces we're talking about; that's highly unlikely.

But hey, thanks for throwing in that nice little hyperbole. Does wonders for your intellectual honesty. :roll:

There is zero need to tackle the scrawny kid and break his arm on accident.

There is zero need to risk fatal or serious injury from overloading one's own electrical system when a simple tackle/take down would suffice. The human body was designed to take some bumps and bruising. We're not made for electrical short circuit.

If you ask the kid if he'd rather have an appendage in a cast or have two little puncture holes on his back/chest. Which do you think he would choose?

Would you rather take a tackle or french kiss a light socket? I've played plenty of tackle football, I've been electrocuted too (part and parcel with the whole physics things). I'll take the tackle any day of the week.
 
Pfft. This "kid" is facing charges. 'nuff said.
 
And if you're built like a football player with all the skills and athleticism of say Urlacher or Lewis; I may agree with you. But changes are very very slim. And certainly the drunk dumbass they were chasing wasn't no Ray Lewis. So again, that argument is BS.

So instead, we have a device which can cause death vs. a low speed tackle or take down with much less change of overall injury and pain. For trespassing with no threat to others; I'm going to say that tazering is a bit over the line
They couldn't even catch him.... So how can you say that a "low speed tackle" was going to happen????? Besides, I already stated , now for the 3rd damned time... that the use of the tazer was not necessary in this situation...



Mmm, yes. Very controlled circumstances vs. field environment. Yup...that's valid. :roll:
Whats different about it? Do you know?
Or art thou talking out of thy ass again.


If he got tackled and if his arm got broken, that's part and parcel to the whole trespass thing. But for the speeds and forces we're talking about; that's highly unlikely.
Big Fat Guy landing on you. Not exactly all that unlikely. Besides, big fat guy could get injured in the process. But "thats his job to get hurt" right? Thats a douchebag way to think.

But hey, thanks for throwing in that nice little hyperbole. Does wonders for your intellectual honesty. :roll:
Its the truth... sadly. Just look at your signature.



There is zero need to risk fatal or serious injury from overloading one's own electrical system when a simple tackle/take down would suffice. The human body was designed to take some bumps and bruising. We're not made for electrical short circuit.
Blah blah blah blah. More talking out of your rear. You don't know anything about being tazed except that a few freak accidents happened and your in knee jerk reaction mode.




Would you rather take a tackle or french kiss a light socket? I've played plenty of tackle football, I've been electrocuted too (part and parcel with the whole physics things). I'll take the tackle any day of the week.
Go get tazed, then come talking. You don't know the first thing about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom